Apple Says Apps Must Now Disclose Odds For Loot Boxes (kotaku.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Says Apps Must Now Disclose Odds For Loot Boxes (kotaku.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday December 21, 2017 @12:45PM from the what-are-the-odds dept.

Apple has revised the guidelines for its App Store, including a provision that loot boxes must be transparent about their odds. "Apps offering 'loot boxes' or other mechanisms that provide randomized virtual items for purchase must disclose the odds of receiving each type of item to customers prior to purchase," reads the new rule, which will affect the most popular games on iOS, including Hearthstone, The Simpsons Tapped Out, and Clash Royale. Kotaku reports: Loot boxes, which have always been common in the world of iOS gaming, are virtual grab bags that can give players a host of items ranging from common to rare. Most of the time, you can buy these loot boxes not just for in-game currency but for real money, which has led some players to classify them as gambling -- a label that the Entertainment Software Rating Board doesn't acknowledge. As rage over these practices gets louder and louder, Apple's move is the first of what may be many steps that game publishers and distributors voluntarily take in an attempt to avoid regulation from outside bodies.

50 of 88 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The industry's desperately trying by rsilvergun · 2017-12-21 12:56 · Score: 3, Informative

to self regulate fast before the government does it for them.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re: The industry's desperately trying by ravenshrike · 2017-12-21 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Or maybe you're a minor whose brain hasn't fully developed. The fact of the matter is that on the console/PC side, if the ESRB had done its fucking job in the first place and labeled this shit as gambling once the amount of chances you got at it changed with you paying actual money, and thus the games in question AO rated, nobody would give two shits. But they failed to do the ONE FUCKING JOB THEY HAD, and now the arguably more harmful market anyway because of all the lazy fucking parents who just shove a phone in their kids' faces, mobile gaming, is about to get fucked in the ass.
2. Re: The industry's desperately trying by sg_oneill · 2017-12-21 19:02 · Score: 1
  
  Thatâ(TM)s all good and fine , but these games target people with poor impulse control and cognitive defects that make them succeptible. The industry calls them âoewhalesâ. Unless weâ(TM)ve truly gone down the dark route of encouraging exploitation itâ(TM)s perfectly valid to police this.
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
3. Re:The industry's desperately trying by ShamblerBishop · 2017-12-22 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  Translation - the industry's desperately trying 'self-regulate' - aka squeeze every last drop out of its customers - fast, before the government regulates for them.
4. Re:The industry's desperately trying by jellomizer · 2017-12-22 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a good thing. If the industry can be a good citizen then they don't need strict rules.
  Strict rules can get in the way of innovation, and law makers are not really smart enough to come up with all encompassing laws that proctect from current problems, however allow for future needs.
  With the industry saying you need to explain your odds, before people pay money, can stop the government releasing rules saying the source code needs to be available, and a long form disclosure needs to be signed.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
5. Re: The industry's desperately trying by Brockmire · 2017-12-22 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Until you take the fucking iOS update, no fucking contractions for you.
Way to miss the point ... by daveime · 2017-12-21 12:57 · Score: 2

This is like telling an alcoholic the alcohol content of the drink in their hand, and expecting them to quit immediately.

Addicts don't really care about odds.
1. Re:Way to miss the point ... by omnichad · 2017-12-21 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  They're probably just doing this to get the attention of the FTC so that Apple's not the bad guy here. They'd rather get an official ruling that it's illegal than risk having to refund customers to keep them happy. Gambling is technically illegal in the entire US except for charity and state governments and a few other exceptions (like Nevada and Atlantic City).
  If people are spending real money on these, it stands to reason they could be classified as such. Regardless of whether you agree with the laws on the books, they are there.
2. Re:Way to miss the point ... by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-21 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone who drinks alcohol is addicted.
  Not everyone who plays a game is addicted.
  Ofc. I want to know a rough estimate of chance for an item ... why else would I play?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
3. Re:Way to miss the point ... by Calydor · 2017-12-21 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  They should really take it a step further and require the math being done for the user. Next to each item and its odds should be the average total price to obtain that item.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Fear not. There's still hope for your revenues. by rmdingler · 2017-12-21 13:06 · Score: 1

Forcing the State-level lottery commissions to reveal the minuscule odds of a jackpot, and even the insightful math regarding the chance of breaking even over a long enough timeline, has done little, if anything, to diminish lottery sales.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Fear not. There's still hope for your revenues. by AuMatar · 2017-12-21 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  And if people decide they want to take a low odds gamble, that's their choice. I bought a ticket for the 300 million lottery this week. The 2 bucks is worth it for the daydreaming of being rich
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
2. Re:Fear not. There's still hope for your revenues. by torkus · 2017-12-22 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yup.
  Counterpoint: if you win lotto, you generally receive a life-changing amount of money exchangeable for physical goods. If you 'win' a lootbox, you get database record entry related to some random game you're playing.
  Oh, and lootboxes generally cost more than playing lotto anyhow. The pricing is honestly staggering. $100 is the normal high end price and even that doesn't buy you everything.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Follow Magic: The Gathering... by DeplorableCodeMonkey · 2017-12-21 13:12 · Score: 2

Every pack included common cards and semi-rare to very rare cards. The theoretical resale value of your pack was about what you paid for it according to the game guides. (Yes, I said theoretical)
It made everyone happy because it ensured that if you bought a full box of packs, you would get some decent stuff. There were no odds of dropping $50-$100 on a box of card packs and box being just crappy common cards.
1. Re:Follow Magic: The Gathering... by vux984 · 2017-12-21 13:45 · Score: 2
  
  And then they added foils and "mythic rares". It's no longer viable to buy a booster box and have good odds of getting a particular card. Not that you need foils to play ... they just prey on 'collecters'.
  Sure every booster has a so-called 'rare'... but no guarantee on anything actually rare.
2. Re:Follow Magic: The Gathering... by cfalcon · 2017-12-21 21:52 · Score: 2
  
  "Mythic Rare" was the shark jumping moment. Foils, as you say, are just there to feed collectors, but when a bunch of power got wrapped up in a rarity that wasn't guaranteed per pack, it changed the old model. It didn't ruin the game or anything, but it was definitely a lot more random than before.
Re:Apple should disclose odds by nnet · 2017-12-21 13:15 · Score: 1

100%. But then you didn't need apple to tell you that.
Shame shame by mysidia · 2017-12-21 13:18 · Score: 1

This just makes it MORE like gambling AND ruins the mystery by revealing what items could potentially be won.
A more PROPER policy to avoid Loot boxes being like gambling would be require all the publishers do these two things:
(1) Establish a "daily purchase maximum" per player / per-user that is not more expensive than the typical costs of food one eats in a day, for example: you cannot buy more than $5 in loot boxes per day per player per game. AND 3x that as a limited monthly limit, E.G. $25 maximum loot boxes per month, and when that $25 limit is used up, resetting it requires calling a phone number, providing verbal proof that the player is age 18 or higher, and accepts some terms, to reset to $100, and finally, an annual limit of $200 per player that cannot be overridden.
And, (2) REQUIRE the player pass a skill-based challenge in game for each loot box "purchase"; in other words, simply BUYING a lootbox cannot be done without completing a skill-based challenge first for each purpose OR consuming some in-game resource that player skill was required to obtain ---- Thus changing it from simple Gambling to a Contest-type situation.
1. Re:Shame shame by Notabadguy · 2017-12-21 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  This just makes it MORE like gambling AND ruins the mystery by revealing what items could potentially be won.
  A more PROPER policy to avoid Loot boxes being like gambling would be require all the publishers do these two things:
  (1) Establish a "daily purchase maximum" per player / per-user that is not more expensive than the typical costs of food one eats in a day, for example: you cannot buy more than $5 in loot boxes per day per player per game. AND 3x that as a limited monthly limit, E.G. $25 maximum loot boxes per month, and when that $25 limit is used up, resetting it requires calling a phone number, providing verbal proof that the player is age 18 or higher, and accepts some terms, to reset to $100, and finally, an annual limit of $200 per player that cannot be overridden.
  And, (2) REQUIRE the player pass a skill-based challenge in game for each loot box "purchase"; in other words, simply BUYING a lootbox cannot be done without completing a skill-based challenge first for each purpose OR consuming some in-game resource that player skill was required to obtain ---- Thus changing it from simple Gambling to a Contest-type situation.
  Great example of how regulation leads to unintended side effects worse than the original.
  People want to spend what they want to spend - this would cause a secondary grey market where people RMT in-game currencies and resell / trade on ebay/elsewhere.
2. Re:Shame shame by burtosis · 2017-12-21 13:45 · Score: 1
  
  Lol $5. Many mobile games people blow 100,200, even 500 usd per month. I've even seen someone actually spend 10 thousand usd on a crappy mobile mmo in only a year. Instead of the devs cutting off this guy (who isn't rich), they specially catered to him and treated him as a VIP.
3. Re:Shame shame by angel'o'sphere · 2017-12-21 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  People want to spend what they want to spend - this would cause a secondary grey market where people RMT in-game currencies and resell / trade on ebay/elsewhere.
  
  And? What is wrong with that?
  Now they know exactly that they get what they pay for!!!
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
4. Re: Shame shame by sg_oneill · 2017-12-21 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Psychologically adding a physical task to the gamble is likely to make it worse. Part of the addiction of pokie machines is the physical action of pulling the leaver and the discontinuous rush of occasionally winning. It creates a cause->pleasure loop in the brain we respond to like good Pavlovian dogs. Any âoeskill testâ requirement is going to be screwed with until the perfect addiction response is obtained (probably automated by A/B testing and maybe some machine learning). These people are in the business of hacking our brains
  
  --
  Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
5. Re:Shame shame by mysidia · 2017-12-22 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Lol $5. Many mobile games people blow 100,200, even 500 usd per month.
  Well, the deal is the kind of chance a person would spend $5 is more like Class II gaming such as Bingo houses,
  and blowing $200 is definitely more like Class III Casino Gambling.
  THAT behavior of blowing large amounts of money $100, $200, $500 is exactly the sort of thing that will get
  the government regulators in to BAN loot crates for everyone.
6. Re:Shame shame by mysidia · 2017-12-22 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  People want to spend what they want to spend - this would cause a secondary grey market where people RMT in-game currencies and resell / trade on ebay/elsewhere.
  That's fine, so long as the gray market sellers declare their profits and properly pay tax on them, And that it doesn't allow players to bypass the restrictions on random chance access, OR the game maker creates a Terms of Service policy against it and enforces the ToS by suspending players who violate the rules.
7. Re: Shame shame by SharpFang · 2017-12-22 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  But you can't fail to pull the lever, and the outcome is strictly random (or otherwise tweaked in a way beyond your control).
  Make this a genuine *skill* challenge, with clear goal, failure mode, and actually challenging (not a mere formality). Of course losing deprives you of the winnings. Set the difficulty in such a way that, say, 50% players can finish it, and top 30-40% can finish it consistently, every time, while bottom 30-40% fail it consistently.
  
  --
  45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Is that a good idea though by SuperKendall · 2017-12-21 13:45 · Score: 1

To me it seems like this may have the opposite effect intended - I could see where someone with a real thirst for gambling would be MORE likely to go for a very rare item, than if they thought the item might come along from free look boxes alone.
Honestly I do not get the loot box hate. I've been playing Star Wars Battlefront II, and they've been fine - I've never felt compelled to spend any real money on them, you earn credits so quickly through normal play you can quickly unlock all the heroes and still buy a crate from time to time, in addition to the free one you get once a day.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You miss two points by aepervius · 2017-12-21 14:25 · Score: 1

1) not all addicts will start getting addicted if they know in advance the odds.There are various degree of addiction, some can't help, some just need a little bit of proding, not all are helpless. Addiction does not imply you cannot stop, addiction at its core is that you engage into an action in spite of knowing it adverse consequences. But every year people stops smoking. Knowing the odds could help this.
2) it may bring everybody including non addicts to recoil at the real odds. Especially if it is expanded to other medium like pc. It could essentially kill overnight the loot box startegy "what BS is that, I am getting 0.1% chance of getting what i want ???".
3) it is a step forward. What do you expect ? banning lootboxs outright ?

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
1. Re:You miss two points by drinkypoo · 2017-12-21 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  3) it is a step forward. What do you expect ? banning lootboxs outright ?
  Since loot boxes are gambling, and it's illegal for them to sell gambling devices, yes. Yes, I do expect loot boxes to be banned outright. Why do I expect that to happen? Because the state can't reasonably profit from child gambling, and anything unprofitable which harms society must be shut down. (Lots of harmful but profitable things, of course, are permitted to continue.)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:You miss two points by war4peace · 2017-12-22 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there are a number of games which implemented loot boxes the right way. Couple more prominent examples:
  1. Path of Exile with their Mystery Boxes: these loot boxes cost 30c a piece (which is equal to 3 dollars), and the buyer is guaranteed that the item in the loot box would not cost less than 30c, with the average value of the item in the loot box being 110c (11 dollars). So no matter what you find in the box, you still gain. Sure, there's a chance of duplicates but you can use those items on multiple characters, for example.
  2. World of Tanks currently has an event going which gives you Holidays-related loot boxes. The largest package contains 75 boxes and costs 90 Euro, and you are guaranteed to gain more value from the loot boxes than the amount you spend. I was gifted a large box and gained 30K gold (which alone costs 100 Euro), about 7M credits, a large selection of other in-game items (garage slots, repair kits, decorations, etc) and a couple Tier 4 premium tanks which I didn't own. A friend of mine bought two large packages and got 3 Tier 4 tanks, 2 Tier 8 tanks, 65K gold, 15M credits and many other in-game items.
  If you're guaranteed to win more than you spend, only you don't know what exactly would you win, is it still considered gambling? I don't know, but it certainly feels more fair than other implementations of this game mechanic.
  
  --
  ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Not all parents are lazy by rsilvergun · 2017-12-21 16:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

See here. Some folks just have to work a lot. Some folks had kids before they knew better or live in a state where birth control isn't available. It's hard to say no to sex. If it wasn't the human race would've died out.

What I'm saying is, a smart (and decent) society helps support parents. It doesn't just blame their kid's problems on them being lazy. Never forget that.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1. Re:Not all parents are lazy by drinkypoo · 2017-12-21 22:10 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is, a smart (and decent) society helps support parents. It doesn't just blame their kid's problems on them being lazy. Never forget that.
  Even a smart and self-interested society does that, so that it doesn't have to be filled with shitheels. We seem to have no shortage of self-interest...
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re: Not all parents are lazy by Brockmire · 2017-12-22 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not American and I even know there's states that have limited availability of birth control that people have to drive hours and hours, if not cross state lines to get. WTF are you talking about?
3. Re: Not all parents are lazy by koomba · 2017-12-22 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if you consider just condoms to be adequate birth control options. Because otherwise, the other reply is absolutely correct that birth control can be very difficult to obtain in some states. It's especially true for low income women who can't afford to pay out of pocket abs rely on assistance from places like Planned Parenthood. Several states have been successful in reducing the number of places like that to very low numbers, in some instances to just a couple locations in an ENTIRE state. That's absurd.
Re:lol by AuMatar · 2017-12-21 16:43 · Score: 2

If the phone doesn't let you do use another app store, it should be sued for anti-trust.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re: Fear not. There's still hope for your revenues by sg_oneill · 2017-12-21 19:07 · Score: 2

Yeah I think itâ(TM)s a different phenomena. I still get a lottery ticket every now and then , even though I know the odds of a victory are so low as to barely warrant consideration. Iâ(TM)m not sure about the US , here in west Australia the lottery commission puts all its profits into charity groups , feeding poor folk, environmental cleanup projects and so on. I think itâ(TM)s a pretty good knowing my $2 goes into that , along with a bit of get-rich fantasy , well THOSE odds are pretty good

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Why rage? by johannesg · 2017-12-21 19:21 · Score: 1

So basically people are raging about voluntary payments in free or almost-free games? How about just not playing those games to begin with? I've found that that is a great way to deal with games I don't like...
1. Re:Why rage? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-12-22 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  People are raging because the payouts are random, and they don't know the odds. Whether that's for a virtual item, cash at a casino, or a raffle, knowing the odds is important to make a decision about whether to buy a ticket.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
2. Re:Why rage? by torkus · 2017-12-22 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I rate that things got to this point to begin with.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Re: Regulating your next computer game by sg_oneill · 2017-12-21 19:23 · Score: 1

Dude. Get some Thorazine, your mother is probably worried by now.
If you poked your head outside your little self contained info bubble you might actually learn the only people that care about âoesjwsâ are sjw opponents. The sane folks are not particularly concerned about millennial tumblr users forming a vast spooky conspiracy to take over the world SOMEHOw.
Concerns over gambling happen to come from all across the political spectrum, but traditionally from the Christian Right (and shock horror look at where most of the political pressure to censor games has come from. Yup, the Christian Right). And now those motherfuckers have you marching lock step along with them waving the boring old culture war and freaking out about language that have been preoccupations of the Christian Right weâ(TM)ll longer than my grey beards been collecting dust for.
Have some fucking perspective

--
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Re: Fear not. There's still hope for your revenues by drinkypoo · 2017-12-21 22:13 · Score: 1

IÃ(TM)m not sure about the US , here in west Australia the lottery commission puts all its profits into charity groups
Here in the USA, most of the money just goes into the general fund. Only a tiny smidgen of it actually goes to education, which is where they always claim it goes.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Apple should disclose odds by SharpFang · 2017-12-21 22:25 · Score: 2

Oh, but dear sir, it's not so simple! How sure are you the phone won't be 59% slower, or 61% slower?

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:lol by SharpFang · 2017-12-21 22:28 · Score: 1

yandere dating simulator game, active all the time, monitoring your phone activity and sending you creepy messages from your virtual psycho girlfriend after you call a contact named with a female name, or it overhears a female voice over the microphone.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
First step, ineffective by Tom · 2017-12-21 23:16 · Score: 1

It's a good first step to curb some of the abuse and limit the gambling, but we know that it won't work very well. People know the odds of winning the lottery, and yet they play. Because humans are incredibly bad at judging chances and probabilities.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re: What are the odds? by 0123456789 · 2017-12-21 23:47 · Score: 1

Chance would be a fine thing:. I have a two year old android phone so no chance of an OS update.
Re: Regulating your next computer game by AHuxley · 2017-12-22 01:23 · Score: 1

Whats the correct perspective to have on an OS wanting to change games?
Just for some aspects of games for now? What other areas will have to be changed to meet new OS regulations and rules?
Do other groups get to enforce suggestions for things they want to see changed in games?
Whats next for pre-publication censorship? Time for a new classification board or censorship board to ensure games are within OS standards?
Do artists and designers really want an OS to offer suggestions about their product?

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Han doesn't approve by TobesWSU · 2017-12-22 05:34 · Score: 1

Never tell me the odds!
Nope, no need by rsilvergun · 2017-12-22 05:42 · Score: 1

you can leave parents to flounder, be self interested and not be dumb (as you imply). The key is to limit access to birth control while creating a propaganda system that encourages child birth. Then you can get the people you want/need to do the things you want done by shear weight of numbers rather than by investing in their quality of life. All it takes is a willingness to condemn 98% of the populace to poverty, misery and death. And that we've got in spades.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:Apple should disclose odds for their hardware b by TheFakeTimCook · 2017-12-22 07:33 · Score: 1

And the odds they'll attempt to hide those bugs in software releases that compromise the performance and usability of their phones.
Oh, FFS! Give it a REST, willya?!?
Re: Regulating your next computer game by koomba · 2017-12-22 12:41 · Score: 1

Seriously, what kind of bullshit are you trying to peddle? Like the other person who replied to you said, the only people who care about so-called "SJW" types OMG RUINING EVERYTHING are rabid anti-SJWs like you. You create this ridiculous strawman and then project everything you hate and that bothers you onto it. It's ridiculous and borderline neurotic.

And again, claiming "radical leftist" types are the ones trying to censor video games? Where have you been the past 25+ years? Because it certainly hasn't been in America or even paying attention to anything happening here. Because it's been the pearl clutching, conservative Christians who have been crusading against evil video games, time and time again. They did it with Doom, with the Postal game, various GTA incarnations and probably plenty others I can't remember.

So maybe next time, you get at least SOME kind of clue before you just start ranting and raving about how the SJWS OMG are destroying everything. Because as it stands you're just wrong and come across as just another bitter, angry Internet alt-right troll type lashing out crazily, with no basis in fact or reality.
Re: Regulating your next computer game by AHuxley · 2017-12-22 13:46 · Score: 1

Re "with no basis in fact or reality."
An OS wants to ban games under new OS rules.
Thats the reality of what is been presented. Someone is suggesting it would be good to be ban games for a set of reasons under new rules.
Who gets to set the rules and what new rules games have to follow to be allowed to work on an OS would have been an on topic discussion.
Considering the power a modern OS has to allow or not allow a game to work that is a powerful change to the creativity of publishing a game for that OS.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"